Ihebereme v. Capital One, N.A.
933 F. Supp. 2d 86
D.D.C.2013Background
- Iheberemes borrow $280,000 in 2007 with Chase/Capital One, co-signed by Chidozie; Deed of Trust and PMI terms; addendum stated PMI would drop when balance hit 78% and payments current.
- Borrower paid May 2007–April 2009; payments credited on a schedule; dispute over timeliness and online payment capability.
- February 2009 payment was credited late due to an internal error; corrective letter issued and credit report subsequently adjusted.
- PMI removal denial issued April 10, 2009, citing past-due requirements; plaintiffs argued terms differed from oral assurances.
- Plaintiffs asserted nine counts including breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, DCCPPA, defamation, promissory estoppel, HPA, and FCRA; defendants moved for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings.
- Court granted defendants’ motion in full after addressing FCRA preemption and other contract-based defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FCRA preemption of state-law credit-report claims | Claims arise from false reporting to agencies | FCRA preempts state claims about furnisher reporting | Counts preempted; dismissed |
| Defamation tied to credit reporting | Defamation independent of credit reporting | Reports were not malice; privileged/ legitimate | Preempted as to credit reporting; remaining defamation claim with letters to plaintiffs resolved in favor of defendant |
| Breach of contract re: timely crediting payments and PMI | Defendant failed to timely credit payments and mismanaged PMI | Deed of Trust allows holding unapplied funds; no contractual breach | No breach; summary judgment for defendants on contract/PMI issues |
| DCCPPA claims (misrepresentation, recordation, etc.) | Defendants engaged in deceptive trade practices | Claims preempted or lack evidence | DCCPPA claims dismissed; preemption and lack of evidence prevail |
| FCRA 623(a)/(b) actions | Private right to sue furnishers for Section 623(a)/(b) violations | No private right under 623(a); 623(b) requirements not met | Counts under 623(a) dismissed; 623(b) claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Promissory estoppel and Homeowners Protection Act claims | Promised PMI removal and credit reporting corrections | Written PMI terms govern; no estoppel/remedy under HOPE Act | Promissory estoppel and HOPE Act claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleads required; no bare conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading requires plausible facts, not mere conclusory statements)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary-judgment burden on movant to show absence of a genuine issue)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute requires a reasonable fact-finder to resolve)
- Himmelstein v. Comcast of the Dist., L.L.C., 2013 WL 1137048 (D.D.C. 2013) (cited for fiduciary duties of furnishers under FCRA timelines (as discussed))